Indeed. My original reply was merely speaking about relative difficulty of dances. All of the subsequent posts have made good related points. On Apr 20, 2015 6:13 PM, "Dugan Murphy via Callers" < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hi Maia, > > I used to organize my dance cards by difficulty, but currently, I use > categories in my box that are largely based on dance-defining figures > (Petronella, star promenade) and types of progression (slide left, > circle-pass-through). I find that system of organization to be more useful > when writing out a program for an evening. > > Dugan Murphy > du...@duganmurphy.com > > > Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400 >> From: Maia McCormick via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >> To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net" <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >> Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings? >> Message-ID: >> <CAHUcZGPHaCuWAZv+d+6EX1aJ7D25CDSvJUFD= >> vlyv8g43fy...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> As I overhaul my contra deck and realize that my difficulty ranking system >> is super incoherent, and most of my dance rankings are from way before I >> had any idea what actually makes a dance easy or hard, I've been thinking >> of scrapping this difficulty ranking system and just starting over. So I >> was wondering: if you rank your dances by difficulty, what is your system, >> what are your benchmarks for various difficulty levels, what sorts of >> things do you consider when determining the difficulty of a dance? If you >> DON'T >> rank your dances, why not? >> >> Cheers, >> Maia >> >> *************************************** >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >